[daveharty]

---

[mike777]

never pass, not close.

I have a 5 loser hand.

much closer to 4s than pass.

[aguahombre]

I would rather have described an 11-14 opener with 6 spades, so partner could be the one deciding whether it is a good idea to continue.

Instead, I have described an 11-17 (18?) hand with 5+4+. There is no continuation I can think of to tell partner I had a 2S rebid. If I were 6-4 in the two suits, I would have more strength than I have, so it would be easy to now bid 3S.

Consequently, I have no idea how to answer the poll.

[mr1303]

3S looks about right at either form. Been down before...

[Codo]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-02, 01:49, said:

I would rather have described an 11-14 opener with 6 spades, so partner could be the one deciding whether it is a good idea to continue.

Instead, I have described an 11-17 (18?) hand with 5+4+. There is no continuation I can think of to tell partner I had a 2S rebid. If I were 6-4 in the two suits, I would have more strength than I have, so it would be easy to now bid 3S.

Consequently, I have no idea how to answer the poll.

I would find it horrible if my partner would describe this hand as a one suiter in spades with 11-14 HCPS. You will miss game opposite Ax,xxx,xxxx,Kxxx or opposite hands with heart fit and you do not gain over any given rebid from partner.

I invite with 3 ♠, won't be down too often.

[ggwhiz]

Wow!

My partners have xx, Axx, KJxx, xxxx on a GOOD day and xx, xxx, Kxxxx, Qxx on a bad one.

I can't pass fast enough but we do agree that the 1nt responder can bid 2nt next time with light points but good controls.

The opponents silence is as likely to be 4 spades with one of them as general dregs.

[mike777]

2s can be quite a wide range given 1s-2h can be quite a wide range. pard could have your dead minimum but can also have much more than your other example but still be less than a 2nt rebid.


I disagree that pard can rebid 2nt with lite points.
Pard could even have 3s and less than a constructive raise here.

[mycroft]

Yes, there are questions, like if partner has three spades, will it be real crap, or could it be a decent 6,7, needing "constructive raise" values to have bid 2♠?

But we do have an 8-card fit, and the right cards will make game. Do I still have a 3♦ short-suit try? If so, at IMPs, I'm making it. If I play constructive raises, there's the 6-7 point hands with three spades, too, that if not too much is wasted in diamonds will make game. But around here, at least, most everybody does play constructive raises, and those that don't are less likely to see the power of this hand opposite 1♠-2♠. So most people are passing at pairs, and I think I have to take my averages when it's +110 and try to take my tops with +170, rather than try to beat the +170s and worry about not making +140.

But details on what I'm playing could tip me either way at both forms of scoring - as could knowing who's got my hand at the other table at IMPs.

[ggwhiz]

mike777, on 2012-November-02, 09:22, said:

2s can be quite a wide range given 1s-2h can be quite a wide range. pard could have your dead minimum but can also have much more than your other example but still be less than a 2nt rebid.


I disagree that pard can rebid 2nt with lite points.
Pard could even have 3s and less than a constructive raise here.

The range we use for 2♥ is 12-17 and you only have 13 with a 1-card boost in shape.

My partnership agreement is that the 1nt responder can push with say an Ace and 2 Kings and that's the perfecto light 2nt bid. We lose often when that push gets us too high so I'm by no means saying you are wrong, we just have an agreement that responder rather than opener is the one to push here and we can afford to respond initially on some real crap if we think it's right.

It's an agreement arrived at with much pain but having agreements on which hand pushes on various auctions is a good thing. And yes, there are some 3-card non-constructive spade support hands that we will miss game on but the opps entered the bidding on most of them.

[Phil]

Seems like an easy pass to me. Game needs perfect cards and good splits.

[mikeh]

I don't know what the bidders are smoking, but it must make them feel really good!

Where do we get off on assuming that partner has a good hand, after he has made the absolutely weakest calls he can make and not have passed 1♠?

My partners bid this way on xx xx KQxxx Jxxx. We're already too high on many normal layouts.

In addition, bear in mind that on just about any holding on which we are favoured to make 3♠, partner ought to bid game. So even if we thought that there were a lot of hands on which the 3-level is safe (and I suspect that it is too high most of the time), bidding 3 is silly, unless we are way behind at imps.

[lalldonn]

It's kind of close but I'm pretty confident pass is right. And I will pretend I didn't see any criticisms of 2♥ as opposed to 2♠.

[mike777]

It sounds like many posters bid 2nt on hands I would rebid 2s.

That gives me a narrow range for 2nt but a wide range for 2s.

I would also open 1s and rebid 2h on hands with less than 12 which again gives me quite a wide range.

Hence this problem.

[rmnka447]

Making a game try would make more sense at IMPs than at matchpoints. That's because of the IMP big swing normally associated with making a thin VUL game. At matchpoints, being positive on the board is probably going to get you somewhere near an average.

Partner should be showing 5-8 with 2 ♠s unless you play a direct 2 ♠ raise as constructive. Then pard could have 3 ♠s and an absolute minimum response.

At IMPs, I think you make a game try of 3 ♠ almost automatically.

At matchpoints, it much less clear. I think I'd make a try if I thought we needed a top or two to do really well. I think I'd also make a game try playing if playing constructive raises. But if pard can only have 2 ♠s, pass ought to get some MPs, so I'll sit.

[mike777]

rmnka447, on 2012-November-02, 18:09, said:

Making a game try would make more sense at IMPs than at matchpoints. That's because of the IMP big swing normally associated with making a thin VUL game. At matchpoints, being positive on the board is probably going to get you somewhere near an average.

Partner should be showing 5-8 with 2 ♠s unless you play a direct 2 ♠ raise as constructive. Then pard could have 3 ♠s and an absolute minimum response.

At IMPs, I think you make a game try of 3 ♠ almost automatically.

At matchpoints, it much less clear. I think I'd make a try if I thought we needed a top or two to do really well. I think I'd also make a game try playing if playing constructive raises. But if pard can only have 2 ♠s, pass ought to get some MPs, so I'll sit.

5-8 seems rather limited in range. I would expect a much wider range given we can open with less than 12 with shape. What are you doing with 9-11 and 2s?....2nt?

[ggwhiz]

mike777, on 2012-November-02, 17:09, said:

It sounds like many posters bid 2nt on hands I would rebid 2s.

That gives me a narrow range for 2nt but a wide range for 2s.

I would also open 1s and rebid 2h on hands with less than 12 which again gives me quite a wide range.

Hence this problem.

Yeah, you are stuck with showing a wide range on one to narrow it on the other. We don't open as many 11 counts as some but if you do it's not clear to me which style would suit you best but there is a lot at risk either way.

I'm missing a few cold games but feel like I'm winning more often. That has as much to do with aggresive opponents (which we play against a lot of) coming in to steer us into the right contract as anything and taking our best shot on the inferences when they don't. ie. the spades split 4-1 against us on this auction a bit more often. If the opps were white you could almost count on it.

[Thiros]

My votes are in line with the poll at large. Partner has conducted a discouraging auction, but there are a number of minimums he could hold that make game very good. I would estimate that given what we know, game is somewhere between a 38-50% chance. I think passing at matchpoints is a clearer decision than making the invitation at IMPs (got to bid those 38% vulnerable games, baby).

[the hog]

Totally agree with the bidding so far. Aguahombre shows 6 cards in his hand, while I show 9.
Pass now and this is not difficult. I think bidding on shows poor hand evaluation.

[mikeh]

Thiros, on 2012-November-02, 19:13, said:

My votes are in line with the poll at large. Partner has conducted a discouraging auction, but there are a number of minimums he could hold that make game very good. I would estimate that given what we know, game is somewhere between a 38-50% chance. I think passing at matchpoints is a clearer decision than making the invitation at IMPs (got to bid those 38% vulnerable games, baby).

This is silly because it assumes that game fails only by one trick.

if game goes down, it could very well fail by 2 or even 3 tricks and, if so, there is a very high likelihood that good opps will double. opps who listen to you havea 2-3-4 sequence are far better positioned to apply the axe, when right, than in most game sequences.

[blackshoe]

3♠